Comments

Dear Mike Frysinger,
In message <1310157072-27512-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote:
> From: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>> > Add support of MX25L4005 and MX25L8005 according to the datasheet> http://www.mct.net/download/macronix/mx25l8005.pdf> > This patch has been tested with MX25L4005 and MX25L8005> > Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>> ---> v2> - tweak summary
This is an identical repost of
06/28 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/9] sf: spansion: add support for S25FL129P_64K
http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/102129
Your "changelog":
- tweak summary
is a lie, as NOTHING changes (except for the "[PATCH 1/9]" versus
"[PATCH v2]" part).
I have explained to you MANY times that YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED to resend
unchanged patches.
I feel you are intentionally provoking me.
Or am I missing somethign?
Best regards,
Wolfgang Denk

Hi Wolfgang,
On 09/07/11 15:16, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> Dear Mike Frysinger,> > In message <1310157072-27512-1-git-send-email-vapier@gentoo.org> you wrote:>> From: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>>>>> Add support of MX25L4005 and MX25L8005 according to the datasheet>> http://www.mct.net/download/macronix/mx25l8005.pdf>>>> This patch has been tested with MX25L4005 and MX25L8005>>>> Signed-off-by: Macpaul Lin <macpaul@andestech.com>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Frysinger <vapier@gentoo.org>>> --->> v2>> - tweak summary> > This is an identical repost of > 06/28 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/9] sf: spansion: add support for S25FL129P_64K> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/102129> > > Your "changelog":> > - tweak summary> > is a lie, as NOTHING changes (except for the "[PATCH 1/9]" versus> "[PATCH v2]" part).> > > I have explained to you MANY times that YOU ARE NOT SUPPOSED to resend> unchanged patches.> > I feel you are intentionally provoking me.> > Or am I missing somethign?
The 'Subject' (Summary??) has changed:
Old:
[U-Boot] [PATCH] mtd/spi/macronix.c: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005
New (and imho improved):
[U-Boot] [PATCH v2] sf: macronix: add MX25L4005 and MX25L8005
While the actual patch itself is identical, there is a change to what would
ultimately end up in git - How should we treat such trivial changes? It
seems to me that the maintainers will tweak this kind of detail at their
discretion and simply post an 'Applied with updated summary' to the ML - Is
this your preferred option?
Regards,
Graeme

On Sat, Jul 9, 2011 at 01:16, Wolfgang Denk wrote:
> This is an identical repost of> 06/28 Mike Frysinger [U-Boot] [PATCH 1/9] sf: spansion: add support for S25FL129P_64K> http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.boot-loaders.u-boot/102129
you already made it clear that you NAK-ed all of the patches posted on
June 28th. and since you refused to take any pull requests of the
original patches (again, having nothing to do with the patches posted
on June 28th), my only recourse is to send the few that had minor
modifications to the changelog in response to the original patch that
they originated from (previous to June 28th) with the "reply-to-id"
set and the changelog of the update.
i really have nfc what your logic is here. i cant send pull requests
of the original patches, you NAK updated patches lacking
reply-to-id/history (i.e. the patch series on June 28th), and when i
send patches with reply-to-id/history to the original patches, you
start rejecting those too. at this point, you've blocked every avenue
possible for me to post patches. ive shown logic behind my actions
and rather than point out exactly what you have a problem with, you
vaguely refer to "the rules" which really doesnt help at all.
-mike